Billion + believe in Satan. Should all schools be mandated to teach Creationism?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Billion + believe in Satan. Should all schools be mandated to teach Creationism?

We must save our children from foolish belief in the supernatural.

Education is the only tool that we have to drag ourselves and our children out of ignorance and superstition and that education should include that it is foolish to read myth literally. No more Dark Ages should be allowed.

Comparative Religion should be taught to insure that no child is lost to creationist intellectual dissonance. We must expose our children to Comparative Religion as soon as they can understand Evolution which would be taught alongside of it.

To do less would be shirking our duty to our children and their young minds. If you do not supports this type of all-inclusive education, please show why you oppose it?

Remember that when President Bush backed up stem cell research, it gave other countries a chance to advance away from the U.S. and hurt the U.S economy.

If the U.S. fails to educate it’s children properly in Comparative Religion and Evolution --- and the various sciences that stem from it, --- the U.S. will shrink it’s economy and power as compared to those countries who have a fuller and more intelligent education program.

Do you agree that it is the duty of the U.S. education system to maintain a first world standard of education in the teaching of Creationism, Comparative Religion and Evolution, --- and catch up to more intelligent countries?

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

Billion + believe in Satan. Should all schools be mandated to teach Creationism?

We must save our children from foolish belief in the supernatural.

Education is the only tool that we have to drag ourselves and our children out of ignorance and superstition and that education should include that it is foolish to read myth literally. No more Dark Ages should be allowed.

Comparative Religion should be taught to insure that no child is lost to creationist intellectual dissonance. We must expose our children to Comparative Religion as soon as they can understand Evolution which would be taught alongside of it.

To do less would be shirking our duty to our children and their young minds. If you do not supports this type of all-inclusive education, please show why you oppose it?

Remember that when President Bush backed up stem cell research, it gave other countries a chance to advance away from the U.S. and hurt the U.S economy.

If the U.S. fails to educate it’s children properly in Comparative Religion and Evolution --- and the various sciences that stem from it, --- the U.S. will shrink it’s economy and power as compared to those countries who have a fuller and more intelligent education program.

Do you agree that it is the duty of the U.S. education system to maintain a first world standard of education in the teaching of Creationism, Comparative Religion and Evolution, --- and catch up to more intelligent countries?

Regards
DL
This thread should be in "Serious Discussions".

[Gnostic Bishop]

The mods can decide that. They know the forum better than I do.

Regards
DL

[Ecurb]

Education is the only tool that we have to drag ourselves and our children out of ignorance and superstition and that education should include that it is foolish to read myth literally. No more Dark Ages should be allowed.


DL

A similar educational program has already been tried in the U.S. From the 1890s to the 1920s, Native American children were removed from their homes and sent off to "Indian Schools". Kindly educators wanted to "drag" these children out of "ignorance and superstition". They were forbidden from speaking in their "mother tongues" (which were, of course, worthless and illiterate). Instead, they were taught English, reading, writing, and 'rithmetic.

It is true, of course, that these Native children (those who survived the epidemics of contagious disease promoted by dormitory living) were also taught Christianity, which, in those days, was thought to be the "true" antidote to primitive superstition. However, the principle behind "Indian Schools" is exactly that advocated by HCabret. Only the details are changed. God (the story goes) created man in His own image. HCabret wants to "educate" (brainwash?) children to reflect HIS own image. If they are allowed to decide things for themselves, they might "shrink (America's) economy and power." Horrors!!! Call out the thought police!!!!

[Gnostic Bishop]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Speak of the issue without pointing fingers and speaking for others please.

I, as a Gnostic Christian am all in for free thought. We had enough of a Christian initiated Dark Age of thought control and do not need another one.

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

As an outsider to this conversation (and therefore perhaps somewhat dispassionate), I want to tell you that you appear to be the one delivering the personal attack (especially with the above quote), and not Ecurb. My observation, by the way, did not involve your argument and cannot therefore be considered an ad hominem in itself. It is not, in fact, a not personal attack of any kind--just some honest feedback that a reasonable person like yourself may care to hear.

[Ecurb]

We must save our children from foolish belief in the supernatural.

DL

I'll agree that we should teach our children to avoid "foolish beliefs". However, does discouraging "foolish(ness)" "save" our children? Isn't the use of the word "save" more consistent with a religious perspective than an agnostic one? In addition, this comment begs the question of whether ALL supernatural beliefs are "foolish", or whether our children should simply be "saved" from those that ARE foolish (heretical beliefs, perhaps).

As a (former) student of comparative religion, I see no problem with teaching it in schools. However, the idea that comparative religion is useful in debunking religion in general is a dated idea, consistent with great thinkers such as James Frazer, but no longer standard practice in comparative religious studies.

[Gnostic Bishop]

As an outsider to this conversation (and therefore perhaps somewhat dispassionate), I want to tell you that you appear to be the one delivering the personal attack (especially with the above quote), and not Ecurb. My observation, by the way, did not involve your argument and cannot therefore be considered an ad hominem in itself. It is not, in fact, a not personal attack of any kind--just some honest feedback that a reasonable person like yourself may care to hear.

If asking someone to stay on topic and not go to the personal is what you see as an attack, then I do not agree.

Thanks for your input though.

Regards
DL.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'll agree that we should teach our children to avoid "foolish beliefs". However, does discouraging "foolish(ness)" "save" our children? Isn't the use of the word "save" more consistent with a religious perspective than an agnostic one? In addition, this comment begs the question of whether ALL supernatural beliefs are "foolish", or whether our children should simply be "saved" from those that ARE foolish (heretical beliefs, perhaps).

As a (former) student of comparative religion, I see no problem with teaching it in schools. However, the idea that comparative religion is useful in debunking religion in general is a dated idea, consistent with great thinkers such as James Frazer, but no longer standard practice in comparative religious studies.

I know of no supernatural belief that is not foolish. Do you?

I said nothing of teachers debunking anything. Just giving the facts is all children will need to do their own debunking.

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

If asking someone to stay on topic and not go to the personal is what you see as an attack, then I do not agree.

Thanks for your input though.

Regards
DL.

Oh you're welcome. But no, as I said in my original post, your personal attack was expressed in your use of the following quote:


Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Unless you were complementing Ecurb for his greatness of mind, that was an ad hominem. Your agreement isn't really necessary. Don't you love critical thinking?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Oh you're welcome. But no, as I said in my original post, your personal attack was expressed in your use of the following quote:



Unless you were complementing Ecurb for his greatness of mind, that was an ad hominem. Your agreement isn't really necessary. Don't you love critical thinking?

Exactly the quote I was referring to.

Keep up the critical thinking.

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

Oh you bet. (I notice you dodge the point though, so let me wish you better luck with yours).

[Ecurb]

I know of no supernatural belief that is not foolish. Do you?




The night is like a lovely tune -- Beware my foolish heart,
How white the ever constant moon -- Take care my foolish heart.

Isn't believing in true love a "supernatural belief"? It may be foolish (indeed, I think it usually is), but do we really want to eradicate it?

In addition, suppose religious belief (foolish as it is) helps America IMPROVE its economy, and power, vis a vis "other countries". Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" suggests this may be the case -- and, after all, we are today both the richest and most religious of Western nations. Surely we shouldn't base our belief systems on whether they help us acquire more and more possessions and armaments -- should we? Perhaps it is easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to attain the Kingdom of Heaven -- even if that Kingdom is merely metaphorical. Or perhaps attempting to surpass other nations in wealth and power, as our Gnostic friend advocates, is, well, "foolish".

Remember, as John Donne suggested:



The Triple Fool
By John Donne

I am two fools, I know,
For loving, and for saying so
In whining poetry;
But where's that wiseman, that would not be I,
If she would not deny?
Then as th' earth's inward narrow crooked lanes
Do purge sea water's fretful salt away,
I thought, if I could draw my pains
Through rhyme's vexation, I should them allay.
Grief brought to numbers cannot be so fierce,
For he tames it, that fetters it in verse.

But when I have done so,
Some man, his art and voice to show,
Doth set and sing my pain;
And, by delighting many, frees again
Grief, which verse did restrain.
To love and grief tribute of verse belongs,
But not of such as pleases when 'tis read.
Both are increased by such songs,
For both their triumphs so are published,
And I, which was two fools, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fools be.

[Clopin]

Schools should be largely privatized and be allowed to teach whatever they want.

[Clopin]

Oh you're welcome. But no, as I said in my original post, your personal attack was expressed in your use of the following quote:



Unless you were complementing Ecurb for his greatness of mind, that was an ad hominem. Your agreement isn't really necessary. Don't you love critical thinking?

An ad hominem is distinct from an insult actually. If I say "hey Pompey, you're dumb" that's just an insult. The more you know.

[Pompey Bum]

An ad hominem is distinct from an insult actually. If I say "hey Pompey, you're dumb" that's just an insult. The more you know.

Interesting. So is it more like what you did to 5th Element, then?


What a moron you are.

Thanks for the pointer in any case. All the best to you. :)

[Clopin]

No, that was not an ad hominem, just an insult.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

No problem, happy to assist.

[Pompey Bum]

No really, I appreciate it. And it wasn't necessary to edit in your Wikipedia research. I was only thanking you.

I do have a question, though. If I gave you some advice, and that advice was heartfelt, but it hurt your feelings anyways, would that be an insult? Because I don't want to insult you. But I do want to suggest that you get over your bitterness about what you do for a living. It's a really great thing to do, and it's not healthy to beat yourself up about not being an high achiever (or however you put it), and it's even less healthy to respond to 5th element's comment with that kind of an insult, or to waste your time (and ours) venting your spleen against women in general. Imagine if you ran into 5th element at the Day Care center and acted that way? You would probably feel embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. Personally, I find myself embarrassed for you, although I'm trying to be as compassionate as I can about it. Why hide behind a veneer of cyber-anonymity and pretend to be someone you know you're not? Why not get over your hurt feelings about women and just be our friend? Honest to God, it would feel better than what you're doing.

All the best to you in any case. :)

[Clopin]

I like what I do though. You're projecting this anti woman bias into my argument that isn't there. You could accuse me of anti male bias because I've stated that women outperform men in school (which is true), that men are more violent than women and that men are also more likely to be stupid and wind up in jail or homeless than women are.

I like women and femininity, what I don't like is the notion that everyone is the exact same in every way. I was raised mostly by a single mother as well and I genuinely think women are far and away the better caregivers for young children in most cases.

But whatever, I hate women because I think men are better at top level chess I suppose....

[Pompey Bum]

Yeah yeah, you like what you do. But when the tears start to fall, this shoulder's here, that's all I'm saying.

[Clopin]

By the way, calling someone a misogynist instead of addressing their reasoning is an ad hominem ;)

[HCabret]

This thread should be closed or moved.

[Pompey Bum]

I vote delete.